Little_Black_Devil

Well, to eliminate any confusion, I can tell you unequiviocally that the German 2cm armed tanks and armoured cars did utilize a 10 round magazine. The 20 round magazine simply wouldn't fit within the confines of a turret. The 2cm Flak guns on the other hand - since they were for the most part open air weapons - (not constricted by a turret) - were able to use the larger, 20 round magazines. The only time you would have had a 6 round magazine, is when you only had 6 rounds left in each of the respective magazine types (10 round and 20 round). There simply never was a 6 round magazine for any 2cm gun, whether it was mounted in a turret, or on a Flak gun. I don't know enough about the 2cm shVAK gun used in the T-60 to comment with any authority. What I do know, is the gun was based off of the same gun (or cannon) used in Russian aircraft. In fact, it may even be the same gun - I'm not sure. Either way, it may be possible that the Soviet 2cm gun Gun is belt fed, or perhaps it could be - or was - altered to fire magazines. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about the 20mm shVAK could comment on it.

Well, I double checked the Flak38, Flakvierling38 (Quad 20mm) and the PzIIc sound as played when they fire their main armament in the game. It seems all of them, utilze the same sound file - which, as has been pointed out; hammers off a distinguishable 6 round burst. I could have sworn it was 10 - my mistake. I'm not certain that JUST 6 rounds are being fired. I'm thinking that the generic 20mm .wav file is an abstract for all of the Flak30/Flak38/KwK30/KwK38 series of guns. I think the same file is likely used for some of the Soviet tanks, such as the 20mm shVAK armed T-60. It would seem, that one "burst" - signified by the entire sound file (not individual components of it - i.e. "ack-ack-ack") signifies the expenditure of one magazine. However, what I'm still not clear on, is if the different magazine sizes (for 20mm armed tanks/armoured cars vs. AAA Guns) has been taken into account. I tried to monitor this in game, running a few experiments with a Flak30/38 and a PzIIc. I can see that, on average, the AAA Guns consume more ammunition, and appear to fire closer to the Flak30's cyclic rate 280rpm (rounds per minute). The PzIIc, appears to fire closer to the Flak30's Practical rate of fire, which is 120 RPM. Its difficult to judge accurately within the game, as sometimes, the PzIIc and Flak30 respectively, begin firing at different times. Sometimes, its within a few seconds into the start of the turn, sometimes its a bit longer - which affects how much ammo they use up. I was hoping to use this as a firm means to calculate what sizes of magazines each were using up respectively, but the varrying results make this pretty much impossible. In any event - I'm happy with how 20mm guns are modeled as they are, though out of curiosity I would like to hear from Battlefront as to how the magazines for respective 20mm guns have been or have not been taken into account. Cheers

I still have not had time to check where I read/saw the bit about mixed ammunition, but in the meantime, here are some pics illustrating a cross section of the gun and its feed arrangements. Gun Cross Section; and the feed arrangements; Both of these images are from a scanned document I have concerning captured German Weapons, pressed into British service. It was published by the British War Office in December 1942.

I'm at work at the moment, but when I get home later I'll see if I can't upload a few scanned images I have, which illustrate a cross section of the 20mm Flak30 and Flak38 breech blocks. I'll also see what more additional info I can dig up with reference to the 20mm guns and the 37mm Flak as well. I would suggest to those that have it, that Ian V. Hogg's book "German Artillery of World War Two" contains a good deal of information on both the 20mm and 37mm guns. Unfortunately, for the moment, I can't recall the specific reason(s) why some crews loaded their magazines with a mixed load of HE and AP; however I don't think this was "common practice". Within the scope of the game, the German 20mm weapons appear to fire off an entire 10 round magazine everytime they fire. I think (but will have to verify), that the 20mm Flak guns in the game also fire at the same rate - which makes me wonder if the larger 20 round magazines have been taken into account (in so far as the speed of ammunition consumption is concerned). Something to look into perhaps. I have noticed however, that the respective loadouts for the respective 20mm armed vehicles are accurate. In terms of rate of fire, and penetration, even though the Flak38/Flakvierling38 fires at a faster rate, it doesn't actually fire the projectiles any faster. As a result, its penetration stats are identical to those of its predecessor the Flak30. The only differece the auto-cannon makes, is that prolonged bursts on automatic, like any other automatic weapon tend to lose accuracy because the gun is bouncing around from recoil. 2 Round bursts are accurate, but anything sustained past that pulls the gun up and to the right. This can be compensated for on the fly, and I would hazzard to say that within 500m its a non-issue. Past that, as has been mentioned above, the rounds will begin to disperse too much, making any attempts to compensate for recoil difficult to say the least. Later

The 20mm Flak 30/38 both used 20 round magazines in the AAA role. The 20mm KwK (as mounted in the PzII or some armoured cars for instance) - is essentially the same gun, but fitted for a tank, as its main armament. These guns too use a magazine, though due to space constraints in turrets, these guns only used 10 round magazines. ALL 20mm armed guns, carried a load of both HE and AP (loaded in seperate magazines). I have read some accounts however, which said that on occaision, some guns manually loaded their magazines, staggering AP and HE in them together. While there was an APCR round for this series of guns, I'm not sure just how widely it was used and when precisely it was used. There were a wide variety of HE rounds for this series of guns as well. None of these 20mm guns was ever, or could ever be belt fed. The principle difference between the Flak 30 and 38, was the 38 had a higher rate of fire. Hope that helps

I was playing a QB once, as the Germans. I wanted to see just how effective captured S-35's would be against Russian armour - which turned out to be BT-7's and T-26's. Anyhow, I pretty much kicked butt, and advanced to the Russian side of the map, swinging my 4 S-35's in a half circle, to come back up behind an obstinate T-26. Unfortunately, I plotted my movement for one of my S-35's too close to the T-26 (which was near the edge of the map) - and when my S-35 swung around, it bumped the T-26. The T-26 then proceeded to get knocked back, just a little bit - but it was enough to push it right off the map. I viewed the movie again, to make sure of what I saw, and indeed, the T-26 was still alive and kicking when it was bumped off of the map - which then had the effect of cheapening my victory. In any event - I thought I'd mention it, as its certainly a "tactic" I'd never want to use, inadvertently or on purpose. I'm sure there are others out there also, who don't want to knock their opponents units off the map in such a cheap and gamey fashion - and then be held accountable for such cheeziness. Of course, it goes without saying, that I'm sure nobody wants to have this done to them (on purpose or not) so its also something to be aware of. Cheers

Well - I too have had Veteran, Elite and Crack Nashorns blasting away at 1000m + , just so see them missing wildly with their first 3-4 rounds. They were hull down, got the first shots off and all missed, rapidly getting brewed up themselves in quick succession. I thought it was the way that I was using them, and it likely was - to some degree. I would place my anti-tank guns, and tank destroyers hull down, but covering vast expanses of ground so that I could react to threats from any direction in the 180° in front of me. All of my books tell me that at 2,000m a Flak 36 should be able to make short work of a squadron of T-34's. CMBB, in some ways, seems to handicap the German optics and the experience of its gunners. Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but I would think that a gun, with optics that can see clearly out to 2,000m, and that is equipt with a rangefinder would make short work of the T-34's, long before they would be able to accurately pinpoint the guns location and subsequently return fire. This is what makes me think that the suceptability of anti-tank guns and tank destroyers isn't totally "correct" in all of the factors the game engine considers. Certainly, I think the points raised by redwolf, regarding TRPs are VERY valid. One word about sums this up - Rangecard. Keep in mind that tank destroyers and anti-tank guns, are for the most part defensive weapons, which insinuates that there is enough time to get yourself snug into a good position, and sketch a quick diagram of the outlying area in front of you with the ranges to prominent features to be used as reference points. I do feel however, that there is something wrong with the way tank destroyers are so easily destroyed themselves, frequently before they are able to score even one hit let alone a kill. It seems their "superior optics" and "nasty guns", are not quite so mencaing after all - even if they are in the hands of a crack crew exploiting their so called "range advantage". This is in part because of Borg spotting. If a forward enemy sniper sees my Nashorn, then every enemy unit sees my Nashorn - or knows precisely its location. Those that do have LOS to it, take aim and fire immediately. So, again in my experience; supperiority in numbers either win the stats game with my Nashorns - and eventually score a direct hit, or the sheer weight of fire suppresses my gun crew - until a direct hit can be made shortly thereafter - usually before I can pull them out of the line. Of course, if I have to pull the gun out of the line as soon as it has contact with the enemy, then what good is it? "Borg spotting" totally, takes away from the fact that the individual advancing enemy tanks I'm engaging might not see my Nashorn themselves (let alone be aware of it). This is because they are informed by the "Hive Mind" as to my existence, and location. Thus, surprising enemy tanks is very difficult, compounded further when the enemy has other units (and particularly Infantry), in front of his tanks "spotting" for the collective. The ONLY way that I have of getting around this - albeit to a limited degree - is to seek terrain which accomodates a defilade position, providing me with enfilading fire. For those not familliar with those terms - let me illustrate a scenario; There is a prominent rise in the ground on my side of the map. I can park on top of it, and see just about all of the map (being VERY visible myself), or I can park on the left hand side, only having a limited view of the left hand side of the map, or alternately park on the right hand side of the feature, with visibility over a portion of the right side of the map. Its using the sides of the elevated terrain features that help you protect yourself from ALL of the enemy units which have LOS to you. If one sees you then effectively they all see you (or at least "know about you"). However, if only one enemy unit has actual LOS to you (and your hull down to him to boot), your chances of survival just became much better, because he is the only one that can shoot back at you with direct fire. Use of terrain like this is further augmented by being able to fire on a given enemy target, or pair of targets with a number of your own units, ideally in different locations. This has the advantage of allowing you to concentrate your firepower from a defensive or ambush position, and also forces your enemy to distribute his own fiewpower to different targets. This may force him to change facing (presenting flank shots to one of your units) and it also costs him time (to traverse his gun to different targets). You may want to designate for yourself, a piece of ground which has to be covered by all guns, which you have allocated for that portion of the map. With this in your mind, and weapons able to cover it, you have created a "kill zone". You might also want to try using this with well coordinated "shoot & scoot" orders, timed from different directions, or at least locations to further amplify your opponents difficulty. "Shoot & scoot" its self, is a very useful command, which even alone helps you improve your Tank Destroyer's life span and increase you opponent's anxiety. What I have had trouble using more effectively are anti-tank field guns. They seem to have to be sighted very VERY well, and only allowed to actually cover smaller portions of ground from oblique angles (made REALLY hard on flat maps with sparse trees). Again, I think a large portion of their suceptability is due to "Borg Spotting". I have found that so far, use of smoke to help cannalize your enemy, and good use of terrain allows you to position AT Guns so that they SHOULD have marginally longer lifespans. Obstacles help too, though "Obstacles are ONLY Obstacles if they are covered by fire". Smoke - can sometimes be too easily caught on to. Once youe opponent figures out what your up to, he'll feint you into expending all, or most of it - and when you're out he'll make his move en masse. In addition, a good opponent will look at your side of the map, and ask himself "if I were the enemy, where would I place my AT Guns?". Yes, this likely happens at every battle, but again the flat maps with sparse vegetation compound the threat from your opponent, who has fewer "likely targets" to spec-fire with his limited indirect fire assets. In any event - those tactics help me. It by no means makes me invulnerable, or allows me to make absolutely "deadly" use of my anti-tank guns or tank destroyers, but I do find that using these tactics, I'm able to hold ground much longer than I used to; because my anti-tank assets are surviving that much longer, which obviously allows them to deal with enemy threats that much longer. Hope some of my rambling helped. Good discussion [ March 10, 2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

The Stielgranate-41, spigot bomb, or hollow charge round for the Pak36, gave the weapon a new lease on life. For those that might be interested, the Stielgranate-41's velocity was only 110 m/s. While its maximum range was 800m, its effective range was, as has already been mentioned; only 300m. Within any of these ranges, it was capeable of penetrating 180mm of armour. In game, if I've got a HC equipt Pak36, I try and keep them hidden until I can force a close range engagement, to maximize their chances of hitting, and therefore - perhaps - the number of targets my Pak36 can engage before it its self is knocked out. The Stielgranate-41, was one of the smaller details that I had hoped would be added to CMBB. Needless to say, I was was quite happy to see its inclusion. While I could be wrong here, I do believe however, that the Stielgranate-42 (for the Pak38) has been ommited from CMBB. I haven't seen it yet - and I have been looking, but that doesn't necessarily mean its not there. I'm not too excited about the Stielgranate-42, as I simply don't have any sources detailed enough that specify how widely it was used, or how many were ever produced (and when) - thus justifying its inclusion or lack there-of respectively. Perhaps someone else has more information on the Stielgranate-42 that might answer these questions. For those of you who are curious, the Stielgranate-42's penetration was exactly the same as the Stielgrante-41. The projectile was simply designed to work with a 5cm weapon as opposed to a 3.7cm one. Hope that helps

Well - aside from the scant numbers, and problems with dual turrets there are other reason's why we ought not to see the Char B1 Bis - on the Eastern Front. This is of course - because, by mid-war standards, heck even by 1941, the Char was an overrated waste of resources and production effort - in comparrison to other tanks then in service and production. The Char, even in 1940, suffered greviously, from mechanical brakedowns, likely second only to the Crusader in North Africa. Its mechanical unreliability, was further exacerbated by the specialized type of fuel it required - aviation fuel. Unlike the Char's German counterparts, the Char couldn't just pull up to a gas station and fill up. In addition, design flaws (like the radiator grill on the Char's left hand side), made it relatively vulnerable on the battlefield. Sure, the Char generally had thick armour at about 60mm in most facings - but no such protection existed over the laterally facing radiator grill on the left hand side of the tank. It might as well have been an open hatch! :eek: As well, the Char suffered from a slow turret traverse for its 47mm turret gun - fleeting targets evaded it with relative ease, then managing to get in under the Chars inadequate vision facilities and where they could really do some harm. The ergonomics of the Char, were also not designed with battlefield efficientcy in mind. The Commander, sat in the turret. He traversed the turret and elevated the 47mm turret gun. He loaded the 47mm turret gun as well as its accompanying coaxial machine gun. He then was also the defacto gunner of both weapons in the turret. When he wasn't busy, he commanded the rest of the tank. The Driver, was responsible for driving the tank as well as operating the hull mounted 75mm main gun. The Char's main gun, a hull mounted 75mm howitzer could only be "aimed" horizontally by the driver, utilizing a special hydrostatic drive. This special drive system, was also prone to breakdown. The driver's periscope, was calibrated so as to accomodate aiming of the main gun. The unfortunate Driver also had to elevate the gun as well. The Char's other two crewmembers, consisted of a radio operator and a dedicated loader for the 75mm main gun. Its interesting to note, that the Char B1 bis' would-be successor, the Char B1 ter was to be equipt with a fifth crewmember whose dedicated purpose, was that of a mechanic. In France 1940, German tanks, like the Panzer 38(t), quickly learned how to outfight the ominous Char by exploiting its weaknesses, chielfy the Char's poor vision, poor turret traverse and radiator grill. The only French tank that ever really impressed the Germans, in terms of mobility, protection and frepower was the French S-35 Cavalry Tank, which of course is already in CMBB. My long winded point is - the Char was too much of a logistical challenge and battlefield liability to have ever seriously been considered for deployment on the Eastern Front, and history reflects that. Keeping in mind the Char's faults which I have outlined above, the Germans steered well clear of the Char when they looked for front line tanks to muster agains the Soviets. The Char B-2(f) Flame throwing variant, saw very limited action in the Crimea. While suffering from many of the same problems as the B1 bis, this varriant of the Char rolled into battle with a relatively thinnly armoured (30mm) container housing the fuel for the flamethrower, which replaced the hull gun. Its easy to see where the Char might have been considered as a feasible platform for a flamethrower by virtue of its early war reputation as a monster; but a closer examination of the vehicles limitations and vulnerabilities quickly indicate why it was never terribly successful. So - I guess in short, one might just say that the Germans simply didn't like the Char B1 bis and thats why they never employed it on the Front line more extensively than they did. Hope that helps

Incredible.... You guys are just incredible!! Thank you Battlefront, and Happy Holidays

"The Winter War" An absolute classic!!

Well - I've seen this feature, and its neat and all, but I have also seen where it can kinda be used as a gamey tactic. I was playing as the Germans against the AI in a quick battle. The AI, had a number of T-26's which I fought my way through with an understrength platoon of S-35's. Anyhow - towards the end of the battle, I ordered one of my tanks to circle around behind the last T-26, which was near one of the edges of the map. The T-26 took a turret penetration from one of my other tanks, backed up and stopped about 10m from his original position. At this point He was about 5m from the edge of the map. I never would have guessed that he would have backed up; especially directly in the path of my S-35 which I had sent to flank him. Well - apparently, neither did the S-35 I had issued the orders to; The flanking S-35 in effect, drove right into the T-26 (ramming it), and then shoved it 5m to its rear, bumping it right off of the map!! Now - I figured that this was pretty cool (briefly), though I quickly realized that had I been playing a human opponent, I quite likely would have either been percieved, if not accused of using a gamey tactic to eliminate a (live/functional) enemy unit. Personally - I think this should be fixed; if its possible. I certainly wouldn't want to see other "bumping" within the game eliminatated, as I think its useful, but I do think that this "bug" should be addressed.

****SPOILER**** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Well - Upon recounting the story involving a stubborn KV-1 which I read about in "Robert Kershaw's "War Without Garlands" and Peter Tsouras' "Panzers on the Eastern Front" on a seperate thread - I was reccomended to this scenario. I enjoyed it. I have played it only as the German, and only once. My strategy - was to bound up with ALL of my tanks, leaving one platoon providing aimed cover fire, while the others bounded up closer to the KV - but moving to its flanks. The concentrated fire of ALL of these tanks quickly forced the KV to button up, and although none of my shots were scoring penetrations, I was getting a number of gun hits, and track hits. I was also wasting a LOT of ammo, with some of my tanks firing while on the move. In depth Soviet anti-tank rifle teams, managed to kill two crew commanders in two of my 38(t)s. That was the extent of my armoured losses. My tanks had closed in, and simillar to what was recounted above, backed the KV against the forest. I had tanks parked within 10m of the KV on his flanks and to his front. The concentrated fire - and the obvious fact that his gun must have been disabled, (cause he hadn't fired back or vapourized any of my tanks) eventually led to the Soviet crew abandoning their tank. They quickly made for the edge of the map and disapeared. I then mounted a well supported mechanized assault on what I was sure was the Soviet defensive (where the road goes into the trees), where I took light losses in men and still no further vehicle losses. I used extensive area fire to suppress known locations of enemy soldiers - and probbable locations as well. The new "Advance" and "Assault" commands enabled me to make the best of the ground and the enemy's suppresion (thanks to my tanks and Half-tracks). For the most part - my troops walked all over the Soviets, though periodically a PPSH would get the best of a few of my men. My 88's, came into action only after the KV was abandoned - and were only able to assist in the suppresion of the enemy's defensive. The Pak36's assisted in this as well. None of the guns - were able to get a shot on the KV, as there was a slight rise in the ground which he hid behind after his initial "introduction" - where upon there was some degree of breath holding. I blindly chased the KV behind this rise - where anything could have been lying in wait - in addition to a KV, which for all I knew - was still operational. In retrospect - not the smartest thing to have done, but momentum and luck in battle can sometimes be deciding factors. I was able to use the rise, to position one of my tank platoons in a hull down position to engage the KV, and keep him busy while the other tanks raced at break neck speed to get on his flanks. Anyhow - that was my experience. I think I'll have to try it again as the Soviets and see just how dangerous the KV can be.

Hey, that was a pretty cool scenario!!

Its possible I missed something in the manual, but I was wondering; 1)Is there any chance in future patches, that we'll be able to place destroyed, brewed/brewing vehicles within the editor? 2)On a related note (within the editor) - would it be possible to either have a "static" deployment mode, to simulate a vehicle being out of fuel? Perhaps a more expedient alternative, would be to give scenario designers some means to toggle a vehicle's initial deployment as "immobile". I realize, that in the editor, it is possible to "dig in" your tanks, and that will by default make them immobile. However, a tank sitting on a road, out of fuel is not the same as a dug-in tank. Just cause you're outa go-go juice doesn't mean your sillouette just shrunk. In any event, the outa gas "effect" is what I'm after. Anyhow - just wondering. ......and yes.....I've been reading Robert Kershaw's "War Without Garlands" and Peter Tsouras' "Panzers on the Eastern Front" again.... There is a certain battle involving a lone KV-1 I'd LOVE to make into a scenario, which kinda requires a stationary KV-1 and a column of smouldering German trucks. Thanks

Cool, thanks for the quick feedback.

Why do prisoners have the option to "cover arc"? Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks

I have no idea how to do this myself, but I noticed that Russian Minefields, are marked or written in German. Not a big deal, but I was wondering if it was possible for someone to replace the German anti-personel minefield and anti-tank minfield signs with Russian ones (for when the minefield was respectively as part of a Russian defensive). I just figured it looked kinda funny during a scenario with Russian defenders, and Russian minefields which were marked with German signs. Thanks

I just commented on this in another thread. In any event - I was quite happy to see the inclusion of this projectile to the Pak36's ammunition loadout. It was muzzle loaded, as already mentioned, and propelled by a cassing with propellent - but no projectile (obviously). Simillar to a blank round, only it wasn't crimped. The actual projectile, looked simillar in appeared to the warhead of a Panzerfust - though its "tail" comprised of a perforated sleeve, containing a rod which then slid into the guns actual barrel, (with the sleve overlapping both). The sleeve also had six stabilizing fins. According to Ian V. Hogg's "German Atillery of World War Two", when fired, the projectile had a velocity of 110mps and was effective up to 300m; though its maximum range was 800m. As indicated above, it could penetrate 180mm of armour, though Ian V/ Hogg's book doesn't specifiy the angle. Its likely 30°, but even if its 0° - its still some serious penetration either way. This projectile was designed to give the Pak36 a new lease on life, an important feat considering the vast numbers these Germans still had available to them, whether they were German Pak36's or captured Russian 37mm Model 30 L/45 (Pak36 built under license by the Soviet Union). Whats interesting to note - is that according to Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander's book "WW2 Fact Files: Anti-Tank Weapons", the Stielgranate-41 was also able to be used with the captured French 47mm Pak181(f), and Pak183(f) (both were models of the French SAmle 1937) as well as the Czech 37mm Pak36(t) and 47mm Pak37(t) (the 47mm Czech gun as seen mounted on the Panzerjager I and in its "normal" field gun role). I have yet to check in the game to verify if this was taken into account for those guns (which are actually in the game) as well. Hope that helped.

****Spoiler down below**** I saw this thread, and then tried the scenario it refers to. I was particularly looking for something, which I was most interested in before I actually got the full version of the game. This was of course - whether or not the Pak36 had access to its spigot-bomb/stick-bomb (Stielgranate-41). This was a Hollow Charge round, which was muzzle loaded and propelled by what was essentially just a cartridge cassing with propellent (no fixed bullet) - basically, simillar to blank ammunition, though the casing in this case was not crimped. Anyhow - I was quite pleased to see the "HC", for Hollow Charge listed as part of the Pak36's in this particular scenario - meaning that yes indeed, the Stielgranate-41 DID make the Pak36's ammunition loadout for CMBB. :cool: Heck, one of my guns even had a few Pzgr40 rounds. My point - other than my jubilation at seeing the inclusion of the Stielgranate-41; is that according to Ian V. Hogg's "German Artillery of World War Two" this particular projectile, was capeable of penetrating 180mm of armour (presumeably homogenous armoured plate at 30° - the book doesn't specify the angle). Furthermmore, it was only really effective up to about 300m, however its maximum range was actually 800m. It had a slow velocity of just 110mps. Obviously - this munition, brings a whole new lease on life to the Pak36 - giving it the ability to penetrate the armour of both the T-34's and the KV's, albeit at close range. Anyone else seen "Men Against Tanks"? So whats the big deal about the Pak36's HC round? **Spoiler*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * Well, the availability of the HC round means, that if you are able to sucker the Soviet tanks in close to your defence, and site your guns (MG's and ATG's) in defilade to produce enfilade fire - then you are quite capeable of taking out both the T-34's in this scenario and the KV's. I used my mortars to keep the Infantry from advancing, and to seperate them from the enemy tanks. You can, for the most part leave your rifle sections out front to help prevent any stragling enemy Infantry from penetrating your defensive. In addition, making a few teams available to assist in tank destruction also made this task a little easier. I was not able to kill all of the enemy tanks - as not all of them advanced close enough. The Soviet tankers that did get too close, ended up walking home, dead or as prisoners. Against the computer, I found this scenario fairly easy to win as the Germans. I would imagine that playing a human opponent would not be quite so cut and dried, though the possibility to win as the Germans is still there by virtue of the tools they do have available to them. But thats just me.

Sorry to hear that there are still some people waiting for theirs. The way mail seems to move.....makes me truely wonder how the heck anything actually gets to where its going... :confused: With the Canada Customs on strike, I'm afraid it might only complicate things. Nothing like backlogging an already inefficient bureaucracy. Ahh, well can't really fault them for excersising their right in a democracy. I do imagine its safe to say their timing sucks though. Hang in there guys!

Canada Post delivered it "COD", in reference to the "outstanding charges from Canada Customs". It was delivered by this cute Canada Post chick......I mean there she was.....just holding the damn game right in front of me.....all I had to do was pay $15 and sign the damned Customs Form.... Like I could have said "no - I won't pay that $15, its obsurd". It certainly was well worth the wait though. I'm just wondering if anyone else got bent over the table by Canada Customs? :eek: [ September 27, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

Well - I actually got my copy today!! It also installed without a hitch!! However Customs charged me $15 (GST,PST & Handling). Did anyone else get nailed for this - or do you have to live in Manitoba to recieve ths "extra special care"?

I think the Customs Officials at the Manitoba Border are playing with my copy right now. ......sigh.....

Arrrrrggghh!! :mad: "Manitoba....the Province that Canada Post forgot" Ahh well, might as well get a little more use out of my "social life" before it does indeed get here.